Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Work in Progress
Abstract
This work in progress investigates human interaction with an LLM-powered chatbot, presented as either a fellow human or a transparently disclosed AI collaborator, in a high-stakes decision-making simulation—the NASA Moon Survival Task. We will employ a one-way between-subjects design to examine how individuals’ collaboration and communication are influenced by the identity of their partner (AI vs. human). Specifically, we will evaluate individuals’ collaboration processes (i.e., collaborative behaviour and communicative dynamics) and outcomes, alongside their retrospective interaction experience and perceptions of the partner. We will also examine dyadic-level linguistic coordination during the interaction and conduct user profiling to uncover variations in AI collaborative benefits. We anticipate that this study will have four key impacts: safeguarding human-AI collaboration, democratising AI benefits, guiding model improvement, and making methodological contributions. The anonymised dialogues and associated data will be open-sourced upon study completion.
Study specs
One-way between-subjects design using the NASA Moon Survival Task to compare behaviors, linguistic coordination, and perceptions in interactions with AI or human partners.
- Authors
- J Zhou,R Aloufi,N van Zalk
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Collaboration processes, communicative dynamics, outcomes, retrospective interaction experience, partner perception, and linguistic coordination, with user profiling for AI benefit variations.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.